Policy Group on Statistical Cooperation 30-31 October 2014, Antalya New round of Peer Reviews in enlargement countries (Doc. PGSC/2014/08)

Introduction Peer reviews in MS, EFTA countries and Eurostat in 2006-08 LPRs and/or AGAs in enlargement countries 2009-2013 AGAs in ENP-East and some Central Asian countries 2008-2013 LPRs and/or AGAs in ENP-South countries launched in 2012 New round of Peer Reviews in MS 2014-2015

New round of peer reviews – why? About 5 years have passed Change of professional and legal environment Pending improvement actions might signal problem Alushta seminar – support for a new round Member States are having a new round of Peer Reviews

New round of peer reviews – how? Eurostat A3 developed several options to be discussed – food for thought All countries to undergo the same exercise Possible to mix elements of different options or to develop a new one

Option 1 – No changes Same method of LPR as in last round + - Results are directly comparable (except BA, XK) - Any new info compared to annual monitoring?

Option 2 – PR with GA-like elements Method of LPR for CoP principles 1-6 and 15 Some form of GA-like assessment for principles 7-14 Option 2.1 Principles 7-14 assessed through a simplified procedure More detail than a PR but less than a GA Option 2.2 Principles 7-14 assessed like in a GA True mix of PR and GA

Option 2 - continued Option 2.1 Option 2.2 + both institutional aspects and statistical fields covered + less burden than 2.2 - for countries that already had AGA Option 2.2 + very thorough assessment + combining advantages of both PRs and GAs - more burden, more resources needed

Option 3 – Audit-like approach Approach used in the new round of MS peer reviews Info provided backed by evidence Structure of report similar to an audit report Report focuses on weaknesses / issues to improve + Stricter  more credible Comparable with MSs - Not comparable with previous round Report highlights more improvement areas than strengths

Option 4 – focus on outstanding actions Minimalistic approach – only focus on outstanding improvement actions Find reasons for difficulties – propose solutions + Less burden, less resources - More useful than annual monitoring? New problems not detected

Implementation of the new approach Improvement actions proposed by NSIs Decision on option based on PGSC discussion Pilot – 2nd half 2015 PGSC 2015 – Discuss results of pilot, fine-tune Full implementation - 2016

Questions for discussion What are the main objectives of a new round of reviews? What are the advantages / disadvantages of each option? What is the optimal way to identify the improvement actions? What other options could be defined, if any?